I have always found interesting the compelling need to compare things. Then again, I guess that is the very basis for judgement and good discussions. We all need a point of reference.
Anyway, I don't think Firelight is like Jane Eyre. Or rather the ONLY similarity was that they are both a love story between a governess and the master of the house who has a disabled wife. But the rest of the premise is so different.
Elizabeth was poor and had no mother, but she did have a relationship with her father. Unlike Jane who's been basically without any family until meeting the Rivers. Charles is not as moody and unpredictable as Rochester. Charles' wife is not a violent madwoman secretly hidden in a tower. In fact the secrecy around Rochester's wife was a major story element in Jane Eyre. By contrast, every body knows about Charles' wife, her condition, and what caused it. The over all tone at Charle's mansion was not dark, gothic, and sinister as in Thornfield. And finally there are no methaphysical mind projections or psychic presentiments like in Jane Eyre.
I actually agree with the poster who compared it to a novel. BTW not fair to blanket categorize the entire genre as "trashy" just because some romance authors are. In this case it was a romance/historical novel premise IMHO. And yes! I admit enjoying those from time to time. [grin] Anyway though many romance novels are well written, I always thought it was a genre difficult to successfully put on film. This movie proved me wrong. It had the right amount of story, period era scenes, romance, and tastefully done intimate scenes.
reply
share